FTFA:"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question. I'm glad he answered it the way he did.

Frank N Stein:FTFA:"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

dittybopper:factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes. That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.

I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.

I don't think it was the small knives that actually did the majority of the killings.

Ablejack:If high capacity magazines actually make for a less effective weapon mechanism, why do gun advocates consider it important not to limit them?

in theory, because they don't like the idea of regulating something 'just because'. a law against the color blue would be restriction without cause, and they consider regulating the high cap magazines to have just as little merit

there's also the practical issues with trying to control high capacity magazines but that's secondary

sprawl15:UrukHaiGuyz: They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though.

to me the real question is always "what is the base issue" followed by "how do we reduce the instances of that issue". limiting the issue to only mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun deaths, strikes me as an incredibly silly way to approach things. one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce the instances of gun deaths would be to legalize and regulate drugs and prostitution.

that the idea isn't something beaten into people's heads with a farking hammer every time these threads pop up shows that people are far more interested in political point scoring/shaming than actually fixing the issue

I think the reason mass shootings have kept the place they have in the public consciousness is that it really is indiscriminate, and that scares people. Even though 50% of suicides are committed with firearms and the majority of firearm deaths are suices., it's not particularly scary to the average individual. I see what you mean though, in that it's the tool of choice for homicide, and that smarter regulation of black market industries would lead to less murder (and therefore fewer gun deaths overall).

The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?

Car_Ramrod:Frank N Stein: FTFA:"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

How so?

It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.

UrukHaiGuyz:I see what you mean though, in that it's the tool of choice for homicide, and that smarter regulation of black market industries would lead to less murder (and therefore fewer gun deaths overall).

and if you look at the violent crime stats you'll see that a majority of violent crime is in some ways drug related. k-mart doesn't shoot wal-mart workers on their way to work, because it's a legal industry. and with those things legalized, and the entire funding structure for things like gangs pulled out from underneath them, there's a real opportunity for significant social change in the places that need it the most

Frank N Stein:Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: FTFA:"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

How so?

It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.

I'm the only good guy with a gun.My guns are being kept by a family member in a gun safe because I have no use for them since I stopped hunting. No way I would have had the time to fly out to Colorado and stop this guy. All the other supposed good guys with guns are delusional and should be treated with suspicion.

Kome:The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?

Look man, they aren't big on logic.

They also make the argument that other things are just as deadly, except then if that was the case, why do these mass murders not choose to use said weapons, time and time again?

Also, only thing that stops guy with a gun is another gun, but reducing the available supply of guns has no impact.

Also also also, we can't put any regulations on guns, because that would lead to other, hypothetical regulations on guns that would be too restrictive.

They aren't bright people. The cartoon above really just sums it up accurately. Tens of thousands of dead people per year is the price they've decided is acceptable for their selfish hobby. And everyone else just has to deal with that.

UrukHaiGuyz:Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.

Guns are actually pretty discriminate - they only put bullets where you point. Bombs, arson, crashes, etc, are less discriminating. (Also more devastating, which is why the military and terrorists alike love bombs and artillery)

As to your second point, I'm sure the Founders could not have imagined radio, TV, the Internet, or Mormonism, so I guess it'd be alright to ban those, or consider them not protected by the First Amendment.

BunkyBrewman:jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The biggest ones are Time and Isolation. To be brief, the longer a shooter has access to an isolated group of victims, the more damage he is going to do.

For example, the Virginia Tech shooting and the Norway attacks were very bloody, ( 32 and 69 victims, respectively) shootings. In both cases the shooters isolated their unarmed victims (university students and youth campers) by chaining doors shut or staging their attack on an island. This gave them plenty of time to execute people.

The recognized proper response to an active shooter is to respond as quickly as possible with whatever police or security assets are available. A lot of shooters commit suicide once opposed.

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.

Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"

Does that make sense?

So, you encourage the sale of defective merchandise... for the children?

We're not banning the sale of Dell computers because they aren't the most reliable machine out there. "Encourage" is an interesting word choice, too. I'd say I'm more of a "let it be" type person. If they aren't posing a significant risk, what's the problem?

justtray: They also make the argument that other things are just as deadly, except then if that was the case, why do these mass murders not choose to use said weapons, time and time again?

Guns are psychologically attractive to the kind of nut that wants to make people beg for their lives, probably. Most mass murders aren't rational actors that proceed from a place of logic, thank goodness, or they'd be killing hundreds at a stroke instead of a dozen. I'm not sure why you want to force them into more effective means of killing.

Olo Manolo:If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...

Really? You're going with that argument?

So what if it didn't jam until the 99th bullet? What if it wasn't a cheap one? Or why don't require only cheap ones to be sold and then we can just rely on them jamming to stop mass murders?

Satanic_Hamster:If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?

It sets a precedence for banning magazines based on size. That leaves the door pen to ratchet limits down further and further, and further, to an unknown point. Take New York - a few years back they set the limit at 10 rounds, but then last year tightened it down to 7 rounds - what guarentee does anyone have they won't take it down further?

If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines? If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...

BayouOtter:Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?

It sets a precedence for banning magazines based on size. That leaves the door pen to ratchet limits down further and further, and further, to an unknown point. Take New York - a few years back they set the limit at 10 rounds, but then last year tightened it down to 7 rounds - what guarentee does anyone have they won't take it down further?

You don't? And the Constitution doesn't guarantee you a certain number of rounds?

QueenMamaBee:dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes. That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.

I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.

I don't think it was the small knives that actually did the majority of the killings.

BayouOtter:UrukHaiGuyz: Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.

Guns are actually pretty discriminate - they only put bullets where you point. Bombs, arson, crashes, etc, are less discriminating. (Also more devastating, which is why the military and terrorists alike love bombs and artillery)

As to your second point, I'm sure the Founders could not have imagined radio, TV, the Internet, or Mormonism, so I guess it'd be alright to ban those, or consider them not protected by the First Amendment.

I meant indiscriminate in that those committing the mass homicides often do not have pre-selected targets, often times just locations. I never said anything about banning anything, in fact stated that I think the 2nd amendment is likely to remain strongly upheld for generations. Thank you though for your considered butthurt, it has been duly noted.

Oktoberain:If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines

I'm not a gun expert, but coudl the argument be made that clearing the occasional jam is less time consuming than refilling a 15 round magazine 7 times, during your responsible trip to the shooting range?